that statement "the moment the embryo can survive oustide the womb", is that really the legal criteria? that's kinda weak. as technology improves, eventually all embryo will have ability to survive.

now, i will not argue what the law is. it is what it is, and here, now, we are have to abide. however, as my father told me once (and he also happens to be a lawyer, for more than 40 years), sometimes the law can be wrong too.

Most everybody is pro-life in a way. Nobody wakes up in the morning hoping for a bunch of unwanted pregnancies to happen so that some of them can be aborted.

Interesting note about Tebow's mom: She didn't even have the choice to get an abortion, so she didn't really "Choose Life."

"One detail has so far been excluded from Tebow's public tellings of the story: abortion was, and still is, illegal in the Philippines. There isn't even a single exception allowed for cases where the mother's life is in danger."

"What exactly do you mean by this? Are you refering to the general premise of the existence of a diety, or the manner in which man acknowledges a diety?" The Committee-----------

Well the two questions are completely different. If you are indeed asking if a higher being/god/deity exists - I have no idea.

Now, whether one believes in a higher being/god/deity is up to an individual. If you; specifically, do - then kewl, good for you. If you don't - then kewl, good for you. But don't assume that everyone else believes in what you believe; regardless of what that may be. If you sense that you don't get respect for your opinion...maybe it's because you don't respect the opposing view.

Now, if you are a Christian - and, let's say for argument, that I am atheist - and we have opposing views on abortion - you are pro life - and I say - that abortions are up to the woman - then the only conclusion one can come up with is that it makes you a bad Christian. y'now why? Cuz Christianity sez that human beings are not supposed to judge one another - that decision is ultimately up to God.

"You guys can all stand around making fun of religion and congratulating each other on how funny you are, but at the end of your life it isn't going to matter how funny your one-liners were and bubbainhawaii isn't going to be there to back you up, you're going to have to stand before God and account for what you've done in life. And I for one am scared as H*** by that thought." Mighty

_____

Mighty, just because I started this thread doesn't mean I'm making fun of religion. I happen to respect religion. My question to you is....if you believe in God and Jesus Christ as your savior and have asked Him for forgiveness....why would you be scared as H***? Shouldn't you actually feel peace for your choice? My understanding is that if you have accepted Christ in your life - then you are indeed going to Heaven. So, why in the world would you be scared?

I don't really expect you to answer because it's quite personal and it was posed as a rhetorical question. The bottom line is I respect all religions and philosophies - because, like I said in an earlier post, 95% of what they preach/teach is identical.

"I'm not pro-life. I'm also not pro-choice. I'm pro-mind-your-own-damn-business"ma6dragon9--------------------

Well, that is an intriguing thought. Not that we should live in a world of anarchy - but government certainly has its way of butting into certain issues on behalf of special interests under the pretense of doing something good for the masses.

"So how moral is it for a woman to kill a baby? When life begins indeed is the heart of the question. No one is trying to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their body. That's a simplistic arguement. It's not like anyone is saying that a woman can or can't have sex. The result, however, can be pregnancy and that's when the question of when life begins becomes the center of the issue.

If a baby is due Dec. 31. Is it OK to abort on Dec. 30? What about Dec. 29? Dec. 28? Dec. 27? When is that magical moment -- that one minute there's no life and one second late, voila, it's a viable life. I've yet to hear an acceptable answer.

But I'll go back to my previous post. I'm more concerned with abortion becoming unnecessary, rather than illegal. " ROY-----------------Roy, it seems that you have a fairly rigid viewpoint on the subject. Nothing wrong with that. The subject, however, is NOT black and white.

For example:1) if a woman who is raped gets pregnant - should she be forced to carry to term and keep the baby or have it adopted or have to give it to the rapist to take care of?

2) if there is a known genetic defect in the baby - should the baby be carried to term or aborted?

3) if the pending birth of the baby will cause the death of the mother, should it be carried to term or aborted?

4) if a condom breaks, and a woman gets pregnant, should she be forced to have the baby

5) if birth control fails, and a woman gets pregnant - should she have the baby

6) if a woman purposely entraps a man - says she was on birth control - and gets pregnant - should the man have to pay child support

7) if a drug dependant welfare mom, who has 10 other children, gets pregnant by yet another man - should she have the baby or have an abortion?

8) if China changes their one baby policy to a no baby policy - should they be allowed to terminate all pregnancies?

9) if the US changes their pro-choice law to a pro-life/no abortion law would that be okay?

I have no clue. My point is that your opinion is "right" to you.....and those who have a differing opinion is "right" to them. That's the beauty of the Pro-Choice stance is that it affords individuals to choose the correct choice based on their own beliefs when the subject matter really isn't black and white.

My question to you is....if you believe in God and Jesus Christ as your savior and have asked Him for forgiveness....why would you be scared as H***? Shouldn't you actually feel peace for your choice? My understanding is that if you have accepted Christ in your life - then you are indeed going to Heaven. So, why in the world would you be scared?

Bubba - if you've seen the things I've written on here, you'd know I'm not obeying God very well.

"Bubba - if you've seen the things I've written on here, you'd know I'm not obeying God very well." Mighty---------

Mighty, well....u and everyone else (including me) on the board has written something on here that is "unchristian-like" - but the last time I checked the bible - it doesn't ask that you be a perfect christian.

"It is still true that we would not be having this debate if men got pregnant. Roe v. Wade would have ended it forever. " Patsfan1966-------I'm sorry, Patsfan - but I don't understand the statement.

The truth is - that, at this moment in time, men can't have babies. Therefore, your arguing with blanks.

Now, let's say that men could have babies - then, I can only speak for myself that - if I were to get pregnant - i'd want an abortion because the thought of squeezing a watermelon out of a hole the size of a pin-head would be excruciating....and I am an admitted wuss.

The fact is, that women - at this time - are built for having babies....and men are not. So, when it comes to actually birthing a baby - men are not equal to women - women are SUPERIOR when it comes to that.

Do you have any facts to back up this assertion that "If men could have babies, there would be no debate". How do you explain that half of American women are pro life? Have they been brainwashed by men? Why are my wife and all the women in her family pro life, when I'm not?

It is perfectly reasonable for people to think abortion is wrong, but not want it to be illegal. I would think even the most pro choice person wouldn't want someone to have an abortion for convenience, ie. to keep their figure or because they don't want the burden of a child. So then even if you are pro choice, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with Tebow's commercial in which they are trying to persuade people not to abort. That will not change the law, it won't even bring the case to court, it is just someone trying to persuade others to choose to keep their babies.

arodrambone, crr is wrong on this one. they got some facts together but it does not amount to absolutely mean that the mom was forced to keep her baby. and it was probably done deliberately to cast a doubt that his mom did this out of her own choice.

first, legal or not, abortion happens in the philippines. even back in 1987, tebow's mom could have found filipino doctors who would do that particularly if they believed the fetus was damaged anyway. there would not have been a thorough investigation if they aborted. the doctor could have easily said the baby did not survive birth because of the damage from the mom's previous illness.

secondly, shenanigan is right, she could easily have flown to the us, if she really did not want the baby. if she was concerned about how she would ahve been perceived by the locals given she's a missionary, she could have easily said her baby is in the us.

third, she did not even have to fly to the us to get an abortion. she's a us citizen. she could have easily gone to clark air base or subic naval base and have it done there.

if not in subic or clark, but easier than flying back to the us, she could have gone to one of the neighboring countries with no ban on abortion and ahve the procedure. with a us passport she could ahve gone in and out of hk or even australia.

she had plenty of choices, which makes me believe she chose to have her baby.

Roy, it seems that you have a fairly rigid viewpoint on the subject. Nothing wrong with that. The subject, however, is NOT black and white.

In some respects, it is black and white in terms your birth control examples. But I understand in all issues there is always gray area, specifically with the issue of rape or when the mother's life is in danger. In those cases, there are no easy answers.

Your example of genetics is dangerous ground. Are you sure the pro-abortion folks want to argue that a baby with genetic defects should be aborted. Sounds a bit like Hitler and the master race stuff. Where is the line drawn?

7) if a drug dependant welfare mom, who has 10 other children, gets pregnant by yet another man - should she have the baby or have an abortion?

It's funny you used this example. I remember reading a column by this one columnist in USA Today years back who used this same example. She asked that exact question to a someone who favored abortions, only the number of children was 14 children (I think). She asked the person should the mother have had the 15th child. The activist said no. The columnist said, she was the 15th child.

As to my example about the dates, like I said, I've never received an adequate answer. It's the abortion crowd who seem to have an answer. I've heard woman talk of what the feeling was like when they were carrying their baby and the 'miracle' of creating life, so I'm in their corner of that, which is why I don't understand the abortion crowd who don't have that view. If they did, there is no choice to make.

6) if a woman purposely entraps a man - says she was on birth control - and gets pregnant - should the man have to pay child support

This isn't an abortion question. But it does bring an interesting point and forget about entrapment. If a man and a woman have consensual sex out of wedlock and the woman gets pregnant, should the man have to play child support if he doesn't want the kid? Women who favor abortion will say yes. OK fine. What if the woman doesn't want the kid but the man does? He can't force the woman to have the baby. To me, that's a double-standard. It took two to tango, so to speak, but only the woman can decide the future for both parties. If the woman says having the baby is going to ruin her life, she can abort and be done. But if she wants the baby and the man doesn't, he's on the hook for the next 18 years.

To me, if you're going to force the man to pay 18 years of child support, then the man should have some rights too. If he wants the baby, then instead of the mother having to play 18 years of child support, why make her have the baby. She's only on the hook for nine months? If you're not going to do that, then legally, if conception occurred out of wedlock, if the woman wants to be the only one who can make a choice, then only she should be the one who deals with the results -- LEGALLY, mind you. Morally, I don't agree. I feel the man should live up to his responsibilities of his actions. But morally, so should the woman.

Yes, there is a lot of gray area, which is why like I've said a number of times now: the focus of the Pro-Life crowd shouldn't be making abortion illegal. It should be making it unnecessary. The casualness many on the Pro-Choice crowd treat abortion and life is disturbing.

Who likes the idea of abortion, and I dont know anyone who treats it casual? If there are such abhorrent people I feel sorry for them. I certainly dont like the thought of anyone having one and would never treat such a momentous issue like this in casual manner. Having said that I absolutely support a womens right to choose if she desires so and I cant believe there are people out there that would take that choice away from her. What business of theirs is it what someone else does with their own body. Seriously, think about it, what right do I have to tell you what to do with your body. There is a legion of reasons why a women or couple decide to have an abortion and that is exclusively their business/right and theirs alone. Or at least it should be. This is just one reason why I and milions like me HATE religion and the imbeciles who are afraid of jesus or meeting him...somwhere...perhaps a IHOP or hopefully it would have been at the APPLE store to tell me how much of a rip off the IPHONE was going to be!

"As others stated, pro-choice is a misnomer - those who support pro-choice are really supporting pro-abortion. " Simroy-------Those who are pro-life generally take this route, but it's NOT a misonomer.

Pro-life extremists basically means that all women should carry to term, no exceptions, no abortions period.Pro-Abortion extremists basically means that all women must have abortions, no exceptions, no babies period.Pro-choice means exactly that - individual gets to choose.

I still can't figure out why extremists on either end feel that they should deny the other person with an opposing view a choice in this particular matter.

"Yes, there is a lot of gray area, which is why like I've said a number of times now: the focus of the Pro-Life crowd shouldn't be making abortion illegal. It should be making it unnecessary. The casualness many on the Pro-Choice crowd treat abortion and life is disturbing." ROY----------First of all, the examples that I gave were merely common questions that often arise - even though some of them may not be directly related to abortion directly.

I noticed that you never bothered to answer the questions that were directly related to abortion.

1) if a woman who is raped gets pregnant - should she be forced to carry to term and keep the baby or have it adopted or have to give it to the rapist to take care of?

8) if China changes their one baby policy to a no baby policy - should they be allowed to terminate all pregnancies?

9) if the US changes their pro-choice law to a pro-life/no abortion law would that be okay?

3) if the pending birth of the baby will cause the death of the mother, should it be carried to term or aborted?

and a new oneIf a woman has a terminal illness that will occur before the birht of the baby, should you just kill the mother, and take the baby?

In addition, your broad brushed categorization that pro-choicers think that abortion should be like a pill one takes for a headache is totally incorrect. This is obviously a Pro-Life extremist political spin on a "fact" that is really fictional bs. You know it I know it. Sorry, but abortion is probably one of the last resorts/actions that I would advocate. That being said, I also don't need a right wing extremist taking my choices away - just like I'm sure that you would be a little pissed if someone told your wife that she HAD to abort because she cannot have a baby (aka, China)

"Your example of genetics is dangerous ground. Are you sure the pro-abortion folks want to argue that a baby with genetic defects should be aborted. Sounds a bit like Hitler and the master race stuff. Where is the line drawn?" Roy______In the real world, animals with genetic defects tend to die or get eaten (even by their own kind). This is a natural phenomena. The difference with Hitler is that he was killing perfectly normal people under the false premise that Germans were superior. Again, your argument fails.

Again, I think we both know that when I talk about genetic problems we're talking about some serious physical and/or neurological problems - where, and I'm only speaking for myself - I wouldn't want to live if I was born w/ some of this shyt. Just like, if I want to take my own life early in a respectful manner because I find out that I'm terminal - well, hellya, I want the choice to take my own life early.

The fact is, abortion is a choice that people have right now - and I think it's perfectly okay for them to choose that route if that's what they choose to do. It's their choice - and it's a choice they have to live with. Who are you to tell them otherwise. I don't think it's okay for a pro-life extremist or a pro-abortion extremest taking the other person's choice away.

This is stupid thread on a football forum but I'll take a shot. Tebow is just doing what he thinks is right. Now if this was China he would likely end up in jail for voicing his opinion but it's not China it's the USA. I get a kick out of people on the left who want tolerance and freedom of expression except when it dosen't agree with their point of view.